It might actually make it on the ballot in California. Let's see just how hypocritical the "protect marriage" people really are.

I am constantly fascinated with the glimpses into what I assume is the liberal mind. Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.

coalkirk wrote:Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.

IMHO the state should only recognize civil unions. If you want tax and visitation and survivorship, or any legal benefits, gay or straight, get a civil union.

If you want to get married (gay or straight) talk to your priest, or rabbi, or minister, or shaman, or spiritual adviser, or whomever you feel can help you. If they're willing to marry you, great, if not, find a denomination that will.

It might actually make it on the ballot in California. Let's see just how hypocritical the "protect marriage" people really are.

I am constantly fascinated with the glimpses into what I assume is the liberal mind. Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.

coalkirk wrote:Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.

IMHO the state should only recognize civil unions. If you want tax and visitation and survivorship, or any legal benefits, gay or straight, get a civil union.

If you want to get married (gay or straight) talk to your priest, or rabbi, or minister, or shaman, or spiritual adviser, or whomever you feel can help you. If they're willing to marry you, great, if not, find a denomination that will.

That my friends, is freedom of religion.

x2

I didn't watch the video but my (twice divorced) co-worker if fond of saying "Marriage is the leading cause of divorce"

Everybody needs somebody to look down on. So, us straight folks, we need gays as the inferior class to keep ourselves boosted up. After all, we're not allowed to use black or coffee people for step stools any longer. So I say, no marriage for same-sex couples. If we were in India, it would be simpler. There, everybody except the untouchables has at least one class inferior to themselves.

Besides, the Pope tells me what to believe, and he's Infallible with a capital "I".

Count me as one who would vote for no divorce or gay marriage! Marriage is a sacrad institution, the foundation of family & children. You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills, and that break down is due to the hammering of the liberal ideals of anything goes.

As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.

Rberg, how funny is it that even liberal maine voted gay marriage down? Even the most liberal of states turn it down when put to the voters, even California, twice!

George-NJ wrote: As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.

So for you marriage is all about kids.

So you don't think post menopausal women should be able to get married?

George-NJ wrote:Count me as one who would vote for no divorce or gay marriage! Marriage is a sacrad institution, the foundation of family & children. You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills, and that break down is due to the hammering of the liberal ideals of anything goes.

As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.

Rberg, how funny is it that even liberal maine voted gay marriage down? Even the most liberal of states turn it down when put to the voters, even California, twice!

So what do you think will happen to the family members or even the entire family of a person that has had it with their spouse and can not get a divorce?I can see a lot more killings and murder suicides of entire families. That's ok as they will enact new gun laws to curb that, right?

Although I agree with this statement "You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills"

Marriage panels is the answer. Each community can appoint a few of their favorite righteous people to oversee all marriage in the community. They can vote on who gets to marry whom and then vote on the subsequent divorce. Without their yea or nay, you don't get to marry or get divorced.

What's that? You say should have the right to marry who you want without outside interference? Really?

George-NJ wrote:Count me as one who would vote for no divorce ... Marriage is a sacred institution, the foundation of family & children.

There is nothing sacred about marriage. Except for the children, marriage should be a 5-year no-fault renewable contract. That is, you can re-up after 5 years, or you can dissolve the contract and go your separate ways with no liability on the part of either spouse. I agree, children are the problem with this philosophy.

George-NJ wrote:Rberq, how funny is it that even liberal Maine voted gay marriage down?

Not funny, pathetic. It's one of only a couple times I have been ashamed to be a Mainer. (The previous time was when a deer hunter killed a teenage girl on her own back lawn, and the jury let him off scott free because she was wearing white mittens. This guy was hunting with a muzzle-loader, yet, which in theory means he needs to be closer and make more-sure of his target, because he gets only one shot.)

The last time religion was used to deny marriage equality, this was the justification:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

tvb wrote:Any guesses as to who wrote that and what happened afterwards?

Well, I didn't know the answer, but I googled it. The words were by a trial judge in the enlightened state of Virginia, in the 50's, convicting a black woman and a white man of living together as husband and wife, though they had married in the District of Columbia. When I say "in the 50's" I don't mean the 1650's, the 1750's, or the 1850's, but the 1950's. They were sentenced to one year in jail, sentence suspended if they would leave the state. Eventually the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court with the assistance of that despicable organization the ACLU.

In fact we have personal friends whose son (one-quarter American Indian), a mere 30 years ago, could not get a marriage license in Virginia because he was marrying a white woman.